However it will be nice to get some actual facts for a change instead of wild rumors and anatomical accusations.

This will almost certainly result in a *reduction* in the amount of publicly available information until the investigation is concluded, which could take quite a while (the Special Prosecutor team in Watergate took 14 months). Mueller is by all reports death on leaks, and runs a very disciplined investigative team. And if the people working the investigation are reassured that Mueller's appointment means their investigation is now less prone to intentional obstruction there is less motivation to leak anyway. And it is not his job to publicly report progress, only to brief the deputy AG and if developments are significant enough, Congress. (Which will *then* of course leak like a sieve...)

gcomeau wrote:Pretty sure if a CEO fired an internal auditor after the internal auditor reported they were investigating possible misconduct by the CEO that would be an issue too.

If it came after said guy, or his subordinates/peers testified in front of a senate hearing that there is no evidence of the crime investigated?

Noone would bat an eyelash at it.

gcomeau wrote:There is no excusing the crap Trump pulls by simply saying "oh he's a businessman not a politician".

Well, DUH! I never said that. It´s an explanation to all the bullshit mudslinging about how he´s not really allowed to do this or that because noone before him did, even if it´s perfectly legal and allowed by rules and regulations bullshit.

Example, the complaints about his golfing trips. Yes, they are extra costs.However, most of the extra costs comes from Trump bringing the whole "court" with him, as unlike Obama or GWB before him, he doesn´t use golfing as "minivacation", but as a work outing.

It´s a lot of wasted money, but the critique is mostly just bullshit. The only thing they´re right about is the extra cost, and even there they use numbers that have no relevance as the numbers claimed are the trips compared to there being ZERO costs of having a president in place. All the daily NORMAL costs were removed, and then the total cost of all trips up until the articles were put together and made to look as if it was the cost of EACH trip.

Well Trump already blew up the first official line of bullshit trying to claim he fired Comey because the Deputy AG recommended it when he couldn't keep from shooting hs mouth off with Holt and at the same time admitted he was thinking of the Russia investigation when he did it...

President Trump told Russian officials in the Oval Office this month that firing the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, had relieved “great pressure” on him, according to a document summarizing the meeting.

“I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said, according to the document, which was read to The New York Times by an American official. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”

It's like he's *trying* to convince everyone he's guilty of obstruction of justice.

gcomeau wrote:Well Trump already blew up the first official line of bullshit trying to claim he fired Comey because the Deputy AG recommended it when he couldn't keep from shooting hs mouth off with Holt and at the same time admitted he was thinking of the Russia investigation when he did it...

President Trump told Russian officials in the Oval Office this month that firing the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, had relieved “great pressure” on him, according to a document summarizing the meeting.

“I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said, according to the document, which was read to The New York Times by an American official. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”

Yes the ever popular anonymous source at it again.

It's like he's *trying* to convince everyone he's guilty of obstruction of justice.

The White House document that contained Mr. Trump’s comments was based on notes taken from inside the Oval Office and has been circulated as the official account of the meeting. One official read quotations to The Times, and a second official confirmed the broad outlines of the discussion.

Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, did not dispute the account.

and later:

“By grandstanding and politicizing the investigation into Russia’s actions, James Comey created unnecessary pressure on our ability to engage and negotiate with Russia,” Mr. Spicer said. “The investigation would have always continued, and obviously, the termination of Comey would not have ended it. Once again, the real story is that our national security has been undermined by the leaking of private and highly classified conversations.”

So Spicer isn't disputing the content of these leaked statements, but rather lamenting the fact that they did leak.

The White House document that contained Mr. Trump’s comments was based on notes taken from inside the Oval Office and has been circulated as the official account of the meeting. One official read quotations to The Times, and a second official confirmed the broad outlines of the discussion.

Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, did not dispute the account.

and later:

“By grandstanding and politicizing the investigation into Russia’s actions, James Comey created unnecessary pressure on our ability to engage and negotiate with Russia,” Mr. Spicer said. “The investigation would have always continued, and obviously, the termination of Comey would not have ended it. Once again, the real story is that our national security has been undermined by the leaking of private and highly classified conversations.”

So Spicer isn't disputing the content of these leaked statements, but rather lamenting the fact that they did leak.

He is the press secretary not the national security advisor. He may not know what actually happened and rather than be wrong, he just issues the standard complaint about leaks.

Tenshinai wrote:Example, the complaints about his golfing trips. Yes, they are extra costs.However, most of the extra costs comes from Trump bringing the whole "court" with him, as unlike Obama or GWB before him, he doesn´t use golfing as "minivacation", but as a work outing.

It´s a lot of wasted money, but the critique is mostly just bullshit. The only thing they´re right about is the extra cost, and even there they use numbers that have no relevance as the numbers claimed are the trips compared to there being ZERO costs of having a president in place. All the daily NORMAL costs were removed, and then the total cost of all trips up until the articles were put together and made to look as if it was the cost of EACH trip.

It was just total bullshit.

You think previous presidents didn't do any work during their "vacations"?

Also, AFAIR most off those other president's vacations were to Camp David and other private locales (e.g. Bush's ranch); Trump's frequent visits to Mar-A-Lago are apparently causing a serious problem to the economy of nearby towns (due to the frequent shutdowns involved).

And most importantly, a lot of the fuss is because of the hypocrisy; Trump frequently complained about Obama's vacations and the costs involved (and about Obama golfing in particular), and is now set to greatly exceed anything Obama did on that front.

Eyal wrote:You think previous presidents didn't do any work during their "vacations"?

Comparatively? No, or rather nowhere near. The difference is that Trump doesn´t use it as vacation at all, just a change in scenery for the work.

Eyal wrote:Also, AFAIR most off those other president's vacations were to Camp David and other private locales (e.g. Bush's ranch); Trump's frequent visits to Mar-A-Lago are apparently causing a serious problem to the economy of nearby towns (due to the frequent shutdowns involved).

That MAY actually be a valid concern. But it would probably be the only one.

Eyal wrote:And most importantly, a lot of the fuss is because of the hypocrisy; Trump frequently complained about Obama's vacations and the costs involved (and about Obama golfing in particular), and is now set to greatly exceed anything Obama did on that front.

Oh yes, i totally agree. But the problem is that media isn´t focusing on the hypocrisy part, they´re complaining about the cost while on the next page complaining about how he is spending such huuuge amounts of money on the White House and then comes an article about how he´s ruining the national budget... etc etc.

Basically, media is doing a character assassination by making sure that people associate him with fiscal irresponsibility, which just happens to be what the US right has as one of its stated parade issues(despite then nearly always being worse at it than the democrats), ie they are specifically attacking his supporters in a very insidious way.

The warfare against him has already gone far beyond politics.

You might say it is the full force version of what the democrats used to get rid of Bernie Sanders.